A. this is exactly the point the author is trying to make, so the argument doesn’t fail to consider this
B. accuracy has no relevance here
C. If they pay no attention to the news reports, the news reports don’t effect them, so this argument has nothing to do with them
D. Correct, because the author is trying to argue against the critics’ claims that negative news reports = negative views of the economy = not willing to spend money, with the premise that spending trends are closely correlated with people’s confidence in their own financial situations. in other words, the author is trying to say that people’s spending isn’t determined by the news reports or the subsequent confidence levels in the economy , rather, their spending is determined by their own finances (such as, for example, how much is in their savings. however, D brings in the idea that negative feelings about the economy make them feel pessimistic about their own finances, regardless of what their individual situations may be. An idea the author failed to consider
E. compares 2 irrelevant factors; author never mention whether they were forewarned
@littlehoot Yup! (A) should be written the other way around to be correct. Written as is, if an individual's confidence level in their own economic situation affected how they perceive reports about the overall state of the economy, the economist could still be right.
I had a hard time understanding why A) is wrong but I think I get it now. A) is saying that a person's confidence in their own economic situation has an impact on how they perceive reports about the overall state of the economy. The problem (I think) is that the economist doesn't fail to consider this. In fact, it's consitent with their argument. If we accept A) as true, the causal chain would go something like this: confidence in personal $ situtation --> perception of negative economic reports --> confidence in state of economy --> willingness to spend --> health of economy. We can see how confidence would ultimately be linked to the health of the economy. It's not the new reports per se that are harmful, but rather how they are perceived, which depends on people's confidence in their personal economic situation.
On the other hand, the economist does fail to consider D). Now, the causal chain would look like this: perception of negative economic reports --> confidence in state of economy --> perception of personal $ situation --> willingness to spend --> health of economy. In this case, the perception of the negative news reports is the starting point. There is nothing to moderate their impact on people's confidence in the overall economy. This chain shows that the negative reports do harm the economy by decreasing people's confidence in their personal economic situation and their willingness to spend.
I knew this was a question of directionality, but I gaslighted myself under time pressure.
The argument grants us that the critics believe in the low general economic confidence. (A) Then to weaken this argument, you have to link it B, in this case, personal economic confidence.
Basically saying; Hey, even if it is B, A still leads to B regardless, which means the counter to the critics is flawed.
Getting the last one wrong I am the stupidest boy in all the world. God should strike me down so I do not shame my family with a dishonorable lsat performance.
Emotionally, this is like having your teeth pulled by a back alley dentist without anesthetic. For some reason, it gives me flashbacks of being locked in a hot car as a toddler on a hot summer day in Texas while wondering if your parent lost track of time or forgot you were in the car. Can't get out of the car, but the heat and inability to breathe tamper with your ability and will to find a way out of the hot car. It must be the despair.
think of it as varying levels of impact. Both describe the impact one thing has on another just with different degrees of specificity:
eg.
drinking caffeine before bed affects sleep.
drinking caffeine before bed causespoor sleep.
"Affect" in a sentence with context like this example and in the above question can be more vague, it tells us there is some impact without a need to be specific.
"Cause" can be more explicit - it might direct us to more detail eg. POOR sleep.
Both, however, imply some impact one thing has on another when used in a sentence. Just typical LSAT semantics trying to trick us :)
I chose D correctly in timed then chose A in BR from my lack of confidence I notice I usually get it right timed and seem to constantly second guess myself afterwards.
I missed this one because I wasn't quite clear on how I needed to manage the two arguments, and what I needed the right answer to do in relation to those two arguments. Was I supposed to strengthen the original argument in order to expose a flaw in the Economist's counter-argument, or was I supposed to point out a flaw in the Economist's argument independent of the original argument?
The way I understand it now is that I needed an answer that still made it possible for news reports to affect personal confidence. So, if lack of confidence in the economy affected people's personal confidence in their finances, that leaves open the possibility that News Reports can affect confidence in the economy and thus affect their confidence in their personal finances. I just wanted an answer that started with news reports. I didn't realize you could look for connections later on the causal chain.
It's been really helpful for me too. For almost every question I can POE it down to two answer choices & from there, it's not too bad to parse out which answer choice is better.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
91 comments
got it right in BR
this is hard as f.
I could totally ace this test if they give me 7 min per question
@JunoGrace lmao same.
I'm just at the WTF point of this section
A. this is exactly the point the author is trying to make, so the argument doesn’t fail to consider this
B. accuracy has no relevance here
C. If they pay no attention to the news reports, the news reports don’t effect them, so this argument has nothing to do with them
D. Correct, because the author is trying to argue against the critics’ claims that negative news reports = negative views of the economy = not willing to spend money, with the premise that spending trends are closely correlated with people’s confidence in their own financial situations. in other words, the author is trying to say that people’s spending isn’t determined by the news reports or the subsequent confidence levels in the economy , rather, their spending is determined by their own finances (such as, for example, how much is in their savings. however, D brings in the idea that negative feelings about the economy make them feel pessimistic about their own finances, regardless of what their individual situations may be. An idea the author failed to consider
E. compares 2 irrelevant factors; author never mention whether they were forewarned
took me 7 minutes. And POE
Could have been explained more clearly. Also, your handwriting is making it so difficult to understand
I understand the question but damn only a 154, bruh.
The video explanation for this question was very detail and good…. So good I had to comment…. Normally I only need the written words to get it.
three wrong in a row, love it.......
Can someone explain why (A) is wrong? Is it because the directionality is wrong?
Like, (A) states:
confidence in personal economic situation --> negative reports
But it's "backwards." It should be:
negative reports --> confidence in personal economic situation
Is my understanding correct? Or is it wrong?
@littlehoot Yup! (A) should be written the other way around to be correct. Written as is, if an individual's confidence level in their own economic situation affected how they perceive reports about the overall state of the economy, the economist could still be right.
I had a hard time understanding why A) is wrong but I think I get it now. A) is saying that a person's confidence in their own economic situation has an impact on how they perceive reports about the overall state of the economy. The problem (I think) is that the economist doesn't fail to consider this. In fact, it's consitent with their argument. If we accept A) as true, the causal chain would go something like this: confidence in personal $ situtation --> perception of negative economic reports --> confidence in state of economy --> willingness to spend --> health of economy. We can see how confidence would ultimately be linked to the health of the economy. It's not the new reports per se that are harmful, but rather how they are perceived, which depends on people's confidence in their personal economic situation.
On the other hand, the economist does fail to consider D). Now, the causal chain would look like this: perception of negative economic reports --> confidence in state of economy --> perception of personal $ situation --> willingness to spend --> health of economy. In this case, the perception of the negative news reports is the starting point. There is nothing to moderate their impact on people's confidence in the overall economy. This chain shows that the negative reports do harm the economy by decreasing people's confidence in their personal economic situation and their willingness to spend.
I knew this was a question of directionality, but I gaslighted myself under time pressure.
The argument grants us that the critics believe in the low general economic confidence. (A) Then to weaken this argument, you have to link it B, in this case, personal economic confidence.
Basically saying; Hey, even if it is B, A still leads to B regardless, which means the counter to the critics is flawed.
Getting the last one wrong I am the stupidest boy in all the world. God should strike me down so I do not shame my family with a dishonorable lsat performance.
Gets this one right I am God??
Emotionally, this is like having your teeth pulled by a back alley dentist without anesthetic. For some reason, it gives me flashbacks of being locked in a hot car as a toddler on a hot summer day in Texas while wondering if your parent lost track of time or forgot you were in the car. Can't get out of the car, but the heat and inability to breathe tamper with your ability and will to find a way out of the hot car. It must be the despair.
Shooter gang Chloe, I think I love you.
how is "affect" the same as "cause"?
think of it as varying levels of impact. Both describe the impact one thing has on another just with different degrees of specificity:
eg.
drinking caffeine before bed affects sleep.
drinking caffeine before bed causes poor sleep.
"Affect" in a sentence with context like this example and in the above question can be more vague, it tells us there is some impact without a need to be specific.
"Cause" can be more explicit - it might direct us to more detail eg. POOR sleep.
Both, however, imply some impact one thing has on another when used in a sentence. Just typical LSAT semantics trying to trick us :)
Ah yes. Damn their trickery!
Thanks :)
I chose D correctly in timed then chose A in BR from my lack of confidence I notice I usually get it right timed and seem to constantly second guess myself afterwards.
I missed this one because I wasn't quite clear on how I needed to manage the two arguments, and what I needed the right answer to do in relation to those two arguments. Was I supposed to strengthen the original argument in order to expose a flaw in the Economist's counter-argument, or was I supposed to point out a flaw in the Economist's argument independent of the original argument?
The way I understand it now is that I needed an answer that still made it possible for news reports to affect personal confidence. So, if lack of confidence in the economy affected people's personal confidence in their finances, that leaves open the possibility that News Reports can affect confidence in the economy and thus affect their confidence in their personal finances. I just wanted an answer that started with news reports. I didn't realize you could look for connections later on the causal chain.
POE is 👑
again, in between A and D, chose wrong!
A was just a backwards causal logic than D was
same
not sure if this will help anyone, but POE has been king on these for me
It's been really helpful for me too. For almost every question I can POE it down to two answer choices & from there, it's not too bad to parse out which answer choice is better.
Agreed! D made more sense than A for me and those were my final two choices
idky but this section has been clicking - it's like i can understand how the descriptions fit to the stimulus? not sure (knock on wood)
ugh I can't tell why the right answer is correct, but I can feel why the wrong answers are incorrect
You will get there! We will get there! I will get there! :-)
I need to read slower and more carefully,
An overarching theme for all LR question types I have noticed is that parallel structure between stimulus and correct answer is KEY.